| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| "Follow the Money:" How France bankrolls America's enemies. |
| 2003-11-29 |
| by Michael Gonzalez, Wall Street Journal. EFL; read the whole thing. "Follow the money" is an old adage, and it means that economic interest will eventually explain much human behavior. That France opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein because he owed millions to French banks is proof of this. Less well known, but much more troubling, are key French financial links with other U.S. enemies. They raise the belief that the Franco-American conflict over Iraq was just one slice of the action. For France was not just Baathist Iraq's largest contributor of funds; French banks have financed other odious regimes. They are the No. 1 lenders to Iran and Cuba and past and present U.S. foes such as Somalia, Sudan and Vietnam. The policy of offering France as an alternative to the U.S. has had a deeply corrosive effect on the political relationship this year, something that will only increase now that President Bush has enunciated a clear, long-term policy of expanding freedom around the world. And as the banking figures attest, the anti-U.S. French self-image extends beyond politics. Other evidence suggests that it has become deeply embedded in the French psyche and encompasses not just finance and politics but also culture, media and almost every other human activity. France, in all its manifestations, positions itself as an alternative to the U.S., and expects to profit from it. The B[ank of I[nternational ]S[ettlements] does not say how profitable or competitive lending to dictators and demagogues has made French banks. But it's worth mulling the chicken and egg question here. As Mr. Moré[, a researcher at a Madrid think-tank,] suggests, perhaps in jest, it could be not that one should follow the money to discover French policy, but that the money has followed French foreign policy. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #8 What is with you,NMM? Are you an American citezen or French? Why is it La Belle France can do no wrong(in your eyes)but America is the world's demon. If you can't afford to imagrate to France.Why not the next best thing and move to Quebec? |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-11-30 7:37:14 AM |
| #7 What is with you,NMM? Are you an American citezen or French? Why is it La Belle France can do no wrong(in your eyes)but America is the world's demon. If you can't afford to imagrate to France.Why not the next best thing and move to Quebec? |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-11-30 7:36:37 AM |
| #6 Ice Cold, thanks also! |
| Posted by: Lucky 2003-11-30 12:43:24 AM |
| #5 It would be understandable if they were acting in their own interest. It seems like what's going on (see TotalFinaElf trials) that it's a competition to loot the French treasury. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2003-11-29 10:27:55 PM |
| #4 ok--great post--so I guess France is the only country which acts on it's own interests unlike the US & UK--ok |
| Posted by: NotMikeMoore 2003-11-29 10:19:39 PM |
| #3 Historically, there have been three elements of the French government at work suborning African and Middle East leaders and feathering their own nests. They are the Ministry of Foreign Affairs people, the Prime Minister's people, and the Military people (which includes the DGSE). The corruption runs so deep that despite the competition no one squeals on the other. Really, not much has changed since the retired French DGSE spy chief Count de Marenche wrote "The Fourth World War: Diplomacy and Espionage in the Age of Terrorism" in 1992. The names might change, the methods of French diplomacy don't. |
| Posted by: Tancred 2003-11-29 8:02:02 PM |
| #2 French diplomacy has long relied on French loans.It was French loans that were instrumental in forging an alliance with Tsarist Russia. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2003-11-29 3:33:31 PM |
| #1 Thanks for posting, Michael -- very interesting. France is surely the worst case, but the phenomenon includes Germany, Russia, and others. That phenomenon is what I call (for lack of a zingier formulation) "free-ridership with a profiteering kicker". As long ago as Gulf War I, I argued with foreign policy colleagues that the chief challenge the US faced in the post-Cold War era was free ridership. Not loose nukes, not a dissolving NATO, not even terrorism per se. All those problems are made far more difficult by free-riding. Iraq was, of course, the ultimate example of the behavior, and illustrates the key elements clearly. First, the US shoulders the costs and risks of both containing/managing a problem AND whatever might be needed if containment breaks down. Second, in the meantime our "allies" and other free-riders actively profit from the situation. If things go south, the free-riders can change their tune, make token contributions to any coalition dealing with the crisis, and be glad of their past economic windfall. If somehow the target rogue state comes clean, the free-riders are ideally positioned to build on their previous stakes. By separating risk and reward, the key relationship in economic behavior, assigning all risk to the US and all reward to others, this phenomenon naturally produces perverse outcomes. It's close to a win-win strategy for the free-riders, and quite rational, requiring only the magic ingredients of gross irresponsibility, no self-respect, and utter cynicism to enable it. This was arguably in play during the first Gulf War and especially in the decade following. It's in play now with Iran. It's a damn tough problem to counter. During the current war, the US is too busy to really do much more than work around it. Of course there's no public discussion of this problem -- instead we have, from the "opposition," empty and silly platitudes about gaining international cooperation to share the burden. As if asking nicely enough is the problem. If the current administration and its "opposition" for different reasons cannot even bring themselves to mention the outrageous and irresponsible free-riding behavior of "allies" and partners, there's not much hope we'll soon muster the will or the ideas to counter it. It's wider than French dementia or counter-Americanism. |
| Posted by: IceCold 2003-11-29 2:10:36 PM |